https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442682 The HC upheld the CESTAT's finding that the appellant was not providing intermediary services, as the agreement with the foreign entity was on a principal-to-principal basis without agency or partnership. The court confirmed that the place of provision for intermediary services is the service provider's location, but since the appellant did not qualify as an intermediary, the place of provision was the recipient's location outside India. Consequently, the telecommunication services provided were correctly classified as export of services under Rule 6(A) of the ST Rules, exempting the appellant from service tax liability. The appeals lacked merit and were dismissed. en-us Wed, 06 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Aug 2025 14:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442682 The HC upheld the CESTAT's finding that the appellant was not providing intermediary services, as the agreement with the foreign entity was on a principal-to-principal basis without agency or partnership. The court confirmed that the place of provision for intermediary services is the service provider's location, but since the appellant did not qualify as an intermediary, the place of provision was the recipient's location outside India. Consequently, the telecommunication services provided were correctly classified as export of services under Rule 6(A) of the ST Rules, exempting the appellant from service tax liability. The appeals lacked merit and were dismissed. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 06 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442682